The Lindsay Clancy Trial: Commonwealth v Bowden, Reasonable Doubt and What Happens Next
It’s 4 am in Australia and I’m half falling asleep while feeding my baby, watching the Lindsay Clancy trial from my phone in the dark. Because of the time difference, while everyone in Massachusetts is sitting in court during the day, I’m on the other side of the world watching it unfold through the middle of the night and into the early hours of the morning. And somehow, despite barely being able to keep my eyes open, I’m completely absorbed.
After five weeks of evidence, I’ve found myself watching defence attorney Kevin Reddington pick apart the investigation and raise question after question about the evidence but also, importantly, the lack of evidence. I’m not writing this pretending to know all the answers. I’m still learning myself. But as a law student watching this trial unfold, there is one case Reddington raised that really caught my attention: Commonwealth v Bowden. And once you understand Bowden, Reddington’s strategy throughout this trial starts to make a lot more sense.
What is Commonwealth v Bowden?
Commonwealth v Bowden, 379 Mass 472 (1980), is a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case dealing with deficiencies in a police investigation. Put simply, the defence can draw the jury’s attention to things investigators reasonably could have done but didn’t do, tests that weren’t conducted, evidence that wasn’t obtained, procedures that weren’t followed or relevant avenues of investigation that weren’t adequately pursued.
Those failures don’t automatically prove a defendant is innocent. But they can contribute to reasonable doubt. That distinction is incredibly important!!! The prosecution carries the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. The defence does not have to prove innocence. And Bowden recognises that sometimes what investigators failed to investigate can be relevant when deciding whether the prosecution has actually met that burden.
Suddenly, Reddington’s strategy makes sense!
Watching Reddington cross-examine witnesses over the past five weeks, it feels like he has had Bowden sitting in his back pocket all along.
Again and again, he has returned to the investigation.
What was tested?
What wasn’t?
What evidence was collected?
What wasn’t collected?
Were assumptions made too early?
Were alternative possibilities adequately investigated?
Were statements properly scrutinised against the physical evidence?
It has been fascinating watching those individual questions slowly develop into a much larger argument about the reliability and completeness of the investigation itself.
Reddington ultimately asked Judge William Sullivan for a specific Bowden instruction to the jury. The judge declined to give that specific instruction, but importantly, Reddington can still argue alleged deficiencies in the investigation during his closing argument.
And I suspect that is where we are going to see all of these pieces brought together.
Looking guilty and being proven guilty are two different things!
This trial has really reinforced something fundamental about criminal law for me. Someone appearing guilty is not the same as the prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
At the beginning, so much surrounding Lindsay appeared incredibly incriminating. But then you watch five weeks of evidence being tested through examination and cross-examination and suddenly there are questions.And questions matter in a criminal trial.
A good defence lawyer doesn’t necessarily need to prove an entirely different version of events. Their role includes testing the prosecution’s evidence and exposing weaknesses, inconsistencies and unanswered questions. That’s what has impressed me about watching Reddington. He has systematically challenged the investigation rather than simply telling the jury, “You’re wrong.”
There are questions about Patrick’s account too???!
I also think it’s important to be careful here!
Some of the evidence and cross-examination have left me with questions about Patrick Clancy’s account and whether every aspect of it was investigated as thoroughly as it could have been. That does not mean Patrick is guilty, and I don’t think it would be fair to simply replace one assumption with another.
But that’s exactly my point!
If there are inconsistencies, unexplained evidence or investigative avenues that reasonably deserved further examination, then they should be examined! If police relied heavily upon Patrick’s statements when establishing their initial understanding of what happened, then those statements should also be rigorously tested against the physical, forensic, digital and circumstantial evidence.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Because if further investigation were ever to uncover credible evidence implicating somebody else, that evidence deserves to be properly investigated.
Three children lost their lives!!!
Finding the truth matters more than protecting any particular theory of what happened.
This is why Bowden matters.
Bowden doesn’t say: “The police made mistakes, therefore the defendant is innocent.”
It’s much more nuanced than that.
It allows the defence to say: “Look at what wasn’t done, and consider whether those omissions affect how confident you can be in the conclusions the prosecution is asking you to reach.”
That is such an important distinction. An incomplete investigation doesn’t automatically create reasonable doubt. But significant investigative failures can become part of the overall picture the jury considers when deciding whether the Commonwealth has actually proved its case to the required standard.
Five weeks of evidence are now over, so what happens next?
After approximately five weeks of testimony and evidence, the evidentiary stage of the Lindsay Clancy trial has now concluded. That means we are entering one of the most important stages of the entire trial: closing arguments, the judge’s final instructions on the law and then jury deliberations.
This is where I’m particularly interested to hear Reddington.
For weeks, we have watched him raise individual questions about evidence, witnesses and the investigation. Closing argument gives him the opportunity to take those individual pieces and show the jury what he believes they mean when viewed together. I expect the defence will focus heavily on reasonable doubt and the alleged deficiencies in the investigation, particularly after the arguments surrounding Bowden.
The prosecution, on the other hand, will have the opportunity to bring its evidence together and explain why it says those alleged deficiencies do not undermine its case and why the evidence nevertheless establishes the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Then Judge Sullivan will instruct the jury on the law. Those instructions are incredibly important because ultimately the jurors aren’t deciding this case based on social media opinions, emotions or what appears most likely. They must apply the law as the judge explains it to the evidence they heard in court.
After that, the case belongs to the jury.
Then comes deliberation.
Once closing arguments and the judge’s instructions are complete, the jury will begin deliberating. There is no predetermined amount of time a jury must deliberate.
It could take hours....
It could take days....
The length of deliberations alone won’t necessarily tell us what the verdict will be. The jurors will need to consider the evidence, apply the judge’s legal directions and determine whether the Commonwealth has proved the required elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. And after five weeks of evidence, there is a lot for them to consider.
Three children are at the centre of this!!!
With all the legal arguments, media coverage and public debate surrounding this trial, I think it’s incredibly important not to lose sight of why this case exists.
Three little children lost their lives!!!!
This isn’t entertainment!
Whatever happened deserves to be investigated properly, and whoever is legally responsible deserves to be held accountable according to the evidence and the law.
If there are legitimate unanswered questions, I hope they continue to be investigated regardless of the outcome of this trial.
Justice isn’t simply getting a conviction. Justice is getting it right. And watching Reddington raise Commonwealth v Bowden has highlighted exactly why our legal system allows defence lawyers to question not only the evidence investigators found, but also the evidence they failed to look for. Because when someone’s liberty is at stake and three children’s lives have been lost, assumptions aren’t enough.
The evidence has to withstand scrutiny.
Now, after five weeks of evidence, we are approaching the moment where both sides will tell the jury what they believe all of that evidence means. Then the jurors will have to answer the question at the heart of this trial: Has the Commonwealth actually proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the trial, so please feel free to share them in the comments below. I welcome different opinions and perspectives, but please keep the discussion respectful. This is a space for conversation and healthy debate, not hate, harassment or personal attacks.
If you enjoy reading my blogs and would like to support the work I do, you can click the link below to leave a small donation. As an independent creator, this is my only source of income and every little bit helps me continue putting time into researching, writing and creating content for you. There’s absolutely no pressure, reading, sharing and supporting my work is already greatly appreciated.
Comments